What is the REAL objectivist view on homosexuality?

Posted by woodlema 8 years, 8 months ago to Culture
55 comments | Share | Flag

Thoughts?

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...

So according to Objectivism , sex is potentially moral, but what about homosexuality? The few times Ayn Rand spoke publicly about homosexuality, her remarks were disparaging. She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]).


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ant...
Observe that today’s resurgence of tribalism is not a product of the lower classes—of the poor, the helpless, the ignorant—but of the intellectuals, the college-educated “elitists” (which is a purely tribalistic term). Observe the proliferation of grotesque herds or gangs—hippies, yippies, beatniks, peaceniks, Women’s Libs, Gay Libs, Jesus Freaks, Earth Children—which are not tribes, but shifting aggregates of people desperately seeking tribal “protection.”

The common denominator of all such gangs is the belief in motion (mass demonstrations), not action—in chanting, not arguing—in demanding, not achieving—in feeling, not thinking—in denouncing “outsiders,” not in pursuing values—in focusing only on the “now,” the “today” without a “tomorrow”—in seeking to return to “nature,” to “the earth,” to the mud, to physical labor, i.e., to all the things which a perceptual mentality is able to handle. You don’t see advocates of reason and science clogging a street in the belief that using their bodies to stop traffic, will solve any problem.
SOURCE URL: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/3791-is-homosexuality-moral


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Susanne 8 years, 8 months ago
    Objectivism (in my limited view) isn't built on a morality play, nor is it subject to whims and feelings of emotion such as "disgust". It is built on logic, reason, and mind. someone being "gay" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Or to put it another way - if you have the best worker, the best producer of consistent high quality, that brings your company in its greatest profit and successes, but said person is in a same-sex relationship, would you fire that person that is your success because of your emotional baggage? Cut your own throat to make a stand based on an emotional premise, not a rational one?

    Homosexuality - to someone who really -is- a true objectivist - doesn't even come into the equation. No more than does the color of ones skin, or what their beverage of choice is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 8 months ago
    Much of the physical science of the issue wasn't published until the late 70's and 80's. Her knowledge at the time of her statements was limited. But as an Objectivist, I think it's a condition that has existed throughout man's history and I, as an individual can accept or deny it on my property and those with the condition or those that favor it can accept it on their property.

    It's just not my business.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 8 years, 8 months ago
      You are right..it is not my business either...until the Feds mandate that I not only accept it without comment and actually "embrace and honor it openly with no negative trigger alarms and punish me if I own a business and will not join in the celebrations of "pride"?? Some thing is wrong with this fierce aggressive seeking out of the non believers...not equal to, but similar to ISIS.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 8 months ago
    Like most males, I personally am a little put off watching male-to-male intimacy, but have no such negative reaction to female to female intimacy. Shocking.

    However, I also recognize that 1) sex is natural and 2) homosexuality is natural, 3) sex is not just for procreation. Homosexuality exists in humans and animals, and it's practice is important to the well-being of those with that bias. Fundamentally, what others do has no little/no affect on my life.
    It is important to those so inclined. It is natural. It does not impose on my freedoms and happiness. Therefore, it should be legal and accepted.

    I have very good homosexual friends. I helped one couple build their deck. We go to dinner and parties regularly. They have the manners not to snuggle around me. I make gay jokes and they poke fun at me for being straight and/or gay tendencies. So simple.

    Homosexuals, not minorities, should not enjoy special rights, and the ability to force someone at gunpoint to make them a wedding cake. This is an entirely different issues, and offensive.

    Objectively, homosexuality is fine. If you don't want to hang around them, don't. However, it seems wholly inappropriate to deny them the same rights straight people have or to ostracize them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 8 years, 8 months ago
      As Ms. Rand so clearly wrote, "At whose expense??" The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker?? Who has to give up their rights for others preferences?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 8 months ago
      I mistyped part of this. Should read "Homosexuals, nor minorities, ..." Hope that didn't confuse anyone with my intent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
        aren't they really synonyms when viewing through the eyeglasses of one character only?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 8 months ago
          I don't know what you mean. My sentence intended to assert neither should get special rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
            Maybe it's just me. But there are some words that need no predecessors, since adding one implies an encyclopedia of variances.

            The Word Justice.. There never needs to be anything in front of it. Social Justice, Economic Justice, since that implies that Justice is not justice. Minority is the same. If you are not in a majority you are in a minority and I argue that every individual is a minority in themselves.

            Since every individual IS a minority, and NOBODY should get special rights, so in that we are in complete agreement.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -5
      Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
      I was in a forum, where a couple of gay men, or so they claimed, were bragging up the virtues of the homosexual lifestyle, they actually had the nerve to "condemn" being straight as being offensive.

      So I asked a simple question, here is a cut/paste:
      "I have a simple question for you guys. After your done swishing your penis around in the other guys rectum, coating it in fecal matter, to you at least wipe it off before you "do other things" with it?

      These gay people, got very upset with me, called me vulgar, said that was disgusting. My final comment was:
      "Where is your gay pride man...and thanks for proving my point."

      No personally I do not care one iota where they stick their genitals as long as they are not sticking it in my direction.

      (edited for one missing word)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
        This is really inappropriate.
        -1.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -3
          Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
          Wait...how is that "Innapropriate?" Are you telling me that my description was NOT accurate?

          If it is accurate why would it be inappropriate? I used typical medical terms.

          If you find that description inappropriate, vulgar or disgusting, and the actual mechanics, "not right," then maybe your not as "tolerant" as you think. Where is your gay pride? Be proud of it. Own it..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
            Your description of male homosexuality is inappropriate.
            It suggests a deep seated hatred for homosexuals.

            There are heterosexuals who engage in the same acts.
            Would you ask them the same deeply personal question framed with the same antagonism?

            I think not.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
              Am I to assume this medical site is also demonstrating a deep seated hatred of homosexuals based on your comment?

              https://www.medinstitute.org/2012/06/...

              General health risks:
              •Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).
              •Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
              •The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

              Pregnancy:
              •You cannot get pregnant from the act alone. However, semen could still leak into the vagina and impregnate the woman.

              STDs:
              •The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.
              •Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
              •Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex.
              •The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
                I doubt very much that medical professionals use the word "swish" in their papers.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
                  And you would be wrong again.


                  Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 64

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=VB4...

                  There are more, but this is just one where the term "swish" is used to describe motion.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
                    Ah, more word play to remove reason from the argument.

                    In none of your citations was the word "swish" used as a double-entendre in reference to homosexuals.

                    So, while you cited the correct combination of letters, you did not cite the meaning.

                    Eg: "The car is red" - does "red" here refer to a testarossa (a sports car in the color red) or a trabant (An East German approved substandard car)?

                    When you find a citation which uses "swish" as a knowing double-entendre, spoken as the author's own words, then you will have disproved my assertion and lent credence to yours.

                    I'll wait...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -3
                  Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
                  Ok, how is "repeatedly entering and exiting, coating the penis in fecal matter?"

                  Is that any better? Does that change the actual mechanics, or the results?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -1
                    Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
                    Being PC or Politically Correct was a doctrine of Carl Marx, Communism. That was something Ayn Rand hated.

                    I prefer being blunt and straightforward.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
                      Ayn Rand hated a lot of things.
                      Hate is an emotional response, and as such, a subjective evaluation.
                      For all I know, she hated Italian food - her personal likes or dislikes have nothing to do with Objectivism.

                      Rand, however, did think that all manners of word play intended to cloud or color an issue were used specifically to remove reason from the argument.

                      There is a very big difference between "safe anal intercourse requires extra attention to hygiene" and "...swishing your penis around in the other guys rectum, coating it in fecal matter, to[sic] you at least wipe it off before you 'do other things' with it?" or even "repeatedly entering and exiting, coating the penis in fecal matter?".

                      "Blunt and straightforward" uses precise language.
                      One version is precise, the other two are precisely colored.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
              No, I simply described using a question the VERY specific mechanics of that act.

              Nothing hateful about it, just a FACT! I am sorry you do not like FACTS and consider FACTS hateful, but THAT IS an ACCURATE description of the physical mechanics of male on male gay love.

              I can provide you also the Military link on what the United States Military says happens when you come in physical contact with Fecal Matter, and the associated issues. Is that also hateful?

              Presenting an accurate description is neither hateful, nor judgmental, simply a fact.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -2
                Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
                And that physical act also known as Sodomy, has the same description for ANY human.

                Still does not change the ACTUAL description of the mechanics..NOR the negative reaction YOU and others have for it.

                Edited for word choice
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
                  And the words used in descriptions matter.

                  "I evolved my opinion...
                  You changed your mind...
                  He went back on his word"
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
                    Sorry but the last one is a political attack.

                    If I changed my mind on an opinion, or evolved my opinion, or altered my viewpoint, or flip flopped, or did a 180 on my view are all the same.

                    You last one implied I promised something.

                    Now if I PROMISED, and made a VOW to stick to a view, then changed my mind, only then can you say I went back on my word, welched on my word, or whatever descriptor you choose.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Eudaimonia 8 years, 8 months ago
                      The example I used is a classic example from Copi's Logic.

                      Which is why it was quoted.

                      It shows how essentially the same meaning could be colored by word choice.
                      And, yes, the last one is an attack.
                      That was the whole point of Copi's example.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
        OR trying to FORCE me to do something against MY conscience in support of something I do not approve of or would EVER participate in.

        Even in law, if I am just riding in the getaway car after a robbery, do or say nothing, even if I had nothing to do with it, "I am STILL an accomplice"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -1
          Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
          I find it very enlightening how "some people" take a point away whenever you REFUSE to be forced to do something against your own will.

          To take off a point for that is contrary to Objectivism.

          Are you saying I "SHOULD" be forced against my will to do something I personally do not agree with?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 8 months ago
    The rough sex scenes in the books, esp Fountainhead, make me think Ayn Rand would be open to people expressing their sexual desires however they please, as long as they respect one another's rights?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 8 months ago
    The Atlas Society essay by D. Moskvitz dissects the problem nicely and cites recent scientific research. The salient point is that if it is not a matter of choice, then it is not a moral issue.

    However, what "Objectivism" is can depend on which Objectivist you ask. A few searches proved unhelpful here but I believe that an ARI writer condemned homosexuality as "faking reality." I note, however, that Leonard Peikoff does not take that view.

    For a positive claim, see the works of Chris Matthey Sciabarra, for instance, here:
    http://rebirthofreason.com/Store/Ayn_...

    Wikipedia has an article on the topic that also surveys the pros and cons.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 8 years, 8 months ago
    There is no more an "objectivist" view on homosexuality than on any other fact of reality and of relevant sciences. In other words this is not an area for idle philosophical twaddle without regard to relevant facts and knowledge.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 8 months ago
    Ayn said she does not necessarily approve of homosexuality, but it is not the province of the law either to prohibit. So since she did not approve, what does that mean?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxtHo...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by WilliamRThomas 8 years, 8 months ago
      She was wrong to judge it as a moral issue. Or, more precisely, she should have related honest homosexuality to sexuality in general, which is a source of proper pleasure in the right context.

      Her view in general was that one shouldn't betray one's own happiness--though of course she held, quite rightly, that happiness should be viewed in the context of the long-term pursuit of the life of a rational being.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 8 months ago
      she doesn't get to choose for you or I. Consenting adults. I am skeptical of all the psychological writing attached to Objectivism. Off the cuff. You can educate me. In the first reference, I think she was lacking knowledge. The second reference does not seem to apply. what am I missing?
      That said, you can not change my social world view by force as long as I am not initiating force. Let people pursue non-violent happiness!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 8 years, 8 months ago
        Objectivism is not libertarianism. You can do all kinds of things to yourself legally, none of which are rational, and therefore are immoral. (Voluntary altruism offers a broad range of examples.) That is the question here: is homosexuality moral?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo